Wednesday, April 18, 2012

One NRA Member's Opinion of Wayne La Pierre

The NRA member added: "I think there are a lot of people in the NRA that are not victimized by some of the extreme language. A lot of people believe it because that’s all they hear but I don’t think our government is out to take away all guns."

"If you polled the people here, the majority of the people here would probably be on his side. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t an awful lot of people out there that just think he’s a wingnut."

13 comments:

I'm sure he's right that the majority of the people there (what, maybe a couple hunnert K over the event period?) are Pro-Weenie, Pro-killing adherents of the NRA. So, 200K of the estimated 4M or so members show up for the event and maybe 80, ah fuck it, 95% of them think that Wayne's Gunzworld is the ideal of mankind. Well, shit, that leaves over 300M people who might not see things Weenie's way.

I admit that I'm just pullin' numbers out of my ass, here; wtf, it works for people like Greg Camp and who am I to argue with the debating techniques of someone as convincing a AHWTGCC* denier as hisself.

Democommie, the numbers that I cite come from solid sources, as I've shown many times. I can't help it that you don't trouble yourself to check.

Now it's time for an interpretation: Why is it that gun grabbers can't understand the idea of freedom of thought? We don't operate like the Brady Bunch. You don't have to be ideologically pure to be on our side. Freedom really pisses off authoritarians.

I agree with some of what this guy said. I don’t think the government is out to take away all guns (“all” being the key word). I agree that the government is out to put more restrictions on gun ownership. Where I differ with this gentleman is that he appears to be ok with these restrictions whereas I am not. I don’t want needless restrictions that ban some guns for no good reason, make ownership more expensive, increase my criminal liability, and in general burden my right without any measurable positive effect. That is not to say I oppose all restrictions, but certainly most of the ones being proposed.

What really kills me is that there is this sentiment from our opponents that gun owners should lie down and take whatever they give us so long as they leave us some type of firearm, and we should be happy with it. “No one is going to take away all your guns”- sure, but I don’t care. I will put my foot down long before it ever gets to that point. It is the proposed restrictions that I oppose for their actual content, not just because I think it will lead to the mythical total civil disarmament.

Take an issue that liberals are passionate about- abortion rights. They don’t lie down when anti-abortion conservatives push for more and more restrictions like trans-vaginal ultrasounds. Hey, it doesn’t ban all abortions, so why should they care? They care because it is a needless restriction whose sole purpose it to undermine that right, and I happen to be with them on that issue. I don’t think Rachael Maddow only opposes trans-vaginal ultrasounds because she believes it will lead to a slippery slope banning all abortions, but otherwise thinks it is a good idea. But she uses those same arguments when she rants against the NRA. My advice to gun control folks who don’t understand pro-gun thinking is to think about a right you do believe in, and think about how you feel regarding infringements on that right.

What are you talking about now, Greg. I do anything but avoid the point. The point is we're not talking about A right, we're talking about guns and gun control. That's a specific "right" if you want to call it that, and one that is subject to reasonable infringements.

Yes, it is a right, a right derived from the rights of self defense and life. But you were asked about abortion. Do you support the right of a woman to decide for herself what happens with her body? Then what restrictions will you accept?

MikeB: “it's not just you opponents who feel that way. This guy is an example. Many gun owners don't look at reasonable restrictions like you do.”

Many? I’d like to see Think Progress’ outtakes of the interviews they made looking for this guy before we reach that conclusion. Do you think there are many non-gun owning liberals who don’t feel the way you do?

MikeB: “That's a specific "right" if you want to call it that, and one that is subject to reasonable infringements.”

So why isn’t abortion subject to reasonable vaginal infringements? The point is people who care about a right have vastly different opinions of the word “reasonable” than someone who actively campaigns against that right.

"What really kills me is that there is this sentiment from our opponents that gun owners should lie down and take whatever they give us so long as they leave us some type of firearm, and we should be happy with it.'

And you'll be furnishing some quotes to back that nonsensical surmise?

"Democommie, the numbers that I cite come from solid sources, as I've shown many times. I can't help it that you don't trouble yourself to check.".

The numbers that you "cite". You don't actually "cite" anything usually LIARboy. You spew some assertion with no reference to any peer reviewed studies or government documents. There's a cure for that, but I think you're past the point of being saved in that regard.

Really, Democommie? You need me to provide a quote to you of a gun control advocate saying “no one is going to take away all your guns”, because you can’t seem to recall anyone saying anything like that?

Democommie can't remember much of anything, it seems. He is obsessive about citations for things that are well known, while being oppositional over citations that he's given. He rants and raves. All told, a checkup for Alzheimer's appears to be in order.